THE BGV THEOREM: AN UNEXPECTED ASSET FOR CHRISTIAN THEISM

[ttruscott]

I cannot follow this enough to put it in the science forum but it is interesting...

https://crossexamined.org/the-bgv-theor ... an-theism/

THE BGV THEOREM: AN UNEXPECTED ASSET FOR CHRISTIAN THEISM
“As an experimental physicist, I tend to draw conclusions based on what is known observationally and experimentally rather than on conjecture or speculation. So what are the facts about the origin of our universe? The equations of general relativity suggest that the universe had an actual beginning of space, time, matter, and energy and the BGV theorem along with the expansion of the universe would require that this universe had an actual beginning of the expansion. Other ideas about the origin of the universe like those proposed by Lawrence Krauss or Sean Carroll do not have real scientific evidence to back them up. They are conjecture.�[3]

[Divine Insight]

THE BGV THEOREM: AN UNEXPECTED ASSET FOR CHRISTIAN THEISM

For me this is absolute nonsense.

I reject Christian theism because of its theology. NOT because I'm convinced that there cannot be a potential "Creator God".

So as far as I'm concerned any potential evidence that their might be a creator God isn't going to cause me to reconsider Christian theism anyway. All this would do is suggest that something like Buddhism might actually be correct.

Also, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity conflicts with Quantum Mechanics which we have strong scientific evidence for. Therefore to claim that General Relativity requires that the universe began is not all that impressive.

It would be incorrect to claim that General Relativity would demand that the universe began from "nothing". All that General Relativity can even say is that the universe apparently took on it's current properties at some point in the past that we have dubbed "The Big Bang". There is nothing in General Relativity that says that there could not have been something prior to this event.

And besides, think about it. If Christian theism needs to resort to looking for confirmation via something like this, what does this say about Christian theism?

I can tell you if you don't already know. It reveals that Christian theists have already conceded that their theology is not compelling in and of itself. If they thought it was compelling in and of itself why would they bother to resort to looking for scientific theories as "assets" to their theology?

And like I mentioned above, a universe that was created by a God is actually an "asset" to ALL RELIGIONS. It certainly wouldn't be support for just one of the many off-shoots of Hebrew Mythology.

Let's not forget, if Christian theists want to claim any scientific observations as an asset to their religion, then they have no choice but to, at the very least, acknowledge that this would be an equal asset for Islam.

And obviously they don't even want to talk about the fact that this would be equal support for every religion mankind has ever invented. Why point to Christianity? That's just unnecessary favoritism on the part of the Christian Theist.